handguns or pit bulls?

[WalterMitty]

which is the bigger threat to public safety?

obviously, handguns.

however, the massachusetts state legislature is considering action that would ban pit bulls in the state.

[Alcon]

I don't know, but a handgun that shoots pitbulls would be the most awesome thing ever.

The pit-bull ban is a little absurd.  Was it provoked by an incident?

[WalterMitty]

I don't know, but a handgun that shoots pitbulls would be the most awesome thing ever.

The pit-bull ban is a little absurd.  Was it provoked by an incident?

several incidents recently.  i dont think there has been any fatalities though.

[John Dibble]

Not really a valid comparison. The number of pitbulls owned is probably a lot less than the number of guns owned in this country. (something like 80 million IIRC) In that respect you might get a total amount of injuries and deaths from handguns, but how do the actual rates per unit compare?

By the way Walter, cars are pretty dangerous. There are about 1.2 million deaths due to vehicular accidents worldwide every year, and an estimated forty times that in injuries. Shouldn't we be working to ban cars?

Anyways, in all seriousness I don't think this question is a very valid comparison. For one thing guns (and cars) are largely within human control - generally speaking they pose no inherent danger outside of some freak occurence. Guns don't typically go off when they are sitting untouched. So I think it's safe to say that when it comes to guns the most important thing to consider is how the human owner is dealing with the matter of safety.

With pit bulls on the other hand there is another living creature involved, and it isn't a rational one. Yes humans can exert some degree of control by training the animal, but it can never be as high as the degree of control a human can have over an inanimate object. In that sense the lack of control is one area that increases the danger of pit bull ownership. (or ownership of any animal, though risk varies by species and breed)

Just to clarify though, I don't really support a pit-bull ban. I think the media has blown a few instances that are exceptions out of proportion to make it appear as if most of these animals are that dangerous.

[WalterMitty]

By the way Walter, cars are pretty dangerous. There are about 1.2 million deaths due to vehicular accidents worldwide every year, and an estimated forty times that in injuries. Shouldn't we be working to ban cars?

why do libertarians love the 'cars kill people too' argument?

obviously vehicles are designed and marketed as an effecient way to kill others, as handguns are.

furthermore, to my knowledge auto makers arent immune from liability lawsuits.  of course, we must make your beloved gun makers immune from such lawsuits.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Pit bulls of course, plus a ban on pit bulls might actually at least cut down on attacks by it, while a ban on handguns wouldn't do jack sh!t to stop violent criminals from getting them and thus not decrease violence at all.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

furthermore, to my knowledge auto makers arent immune from liability lawsuits.  of course, we must make your beloved gun makers immune from such lawsuits.

They aren't immune from lawsuits if the car causes damage because of it being poorly built. But when's the last time you heard of someone succesfully suing an auto manufacturer because someone used a car to run someone over? That's about as logical as suing gun manufacturers because one was used in a murder.

WalterMitty's effect on my views on gun control:CARLHAYDEN's effect on my views on illegal immigration

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Banning poor immigrants from coming into the US and walling off the poor would do more to increase the safety of the US if you REALLY want a risk-free environment than banning guns or pit bulls.

[David S]

Pit bulls occassionally get up by themsleves and attack someone. Never saw a handgun do that.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Think of it as a feature and not a bug.

[Sam Spade]

Neither

The only thing we should be banning are the idiots in Massachusetts who came up with the idea for such a stupid law.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

however, the massachusetts state legislature is considering action that would ban pit bulls in the state.

Who's the right-wing whackjob who came up with this idea?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Walter is possibly the biggest nanny-stater I've ever come across.

Ban guns. Tax fast food. Strict restrictions on violent video games. Geez.

[John Dibble]

By the way Walter, cars are pretty dangerous. There are about 1.2 million deaths due to vehicular accidents worldwide every year, and an estimated forty times that in injuries. Shouldn't we be working to ban cars?

why do libertarians love the 'cars kill people too' argument?

obviously vehicles are designed and marketed as an effecient way to kill others, as handguns are.

So? They're dangerous and a lot of people die as a result of car accidents - hell, some of them aren't even accidents. Cars can be used as weapons too! Clearly they are a threat to public safety - in this country there's roughly four times more deaths are caused by these deathtraps than by something that is "designed and marketed as an efficient way to kill others", and yet I strangely don't see you complaining.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You were already countered on this by BRTD of all people. The gun makers are immune to suits in regards to the illegal use of guns by other people - and why shouldn't they be? How are they responsible for someone else's decision to commit a crime? If people were clamoring to sue auto makers over accidents caused by the car users and not the cars themselves, it wouldn't be long before auto makers were made immune to such suits. As far as I know the gun maker is still liable if the gun causes injury or death by fault of design or manufacture.

[Hatman 🍁]

handguns, obviously.

Pit bulls dont kill people, their owners train them to kill people.